À suivreGuide suivant
Copyright of AI-Generated Music
Société
GUIDE DE LA SOCIÉTÉ
New York Times v.
OpenAI is a copyright lawsuit filed in December 2023 in which the Times accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of copying millions of its articles without permission to train ChatGPT and related models, and of producing outputs that compete with its journalism. The defendants argue that training is fair use. The case matters because its outcome could shape whether AI companies must license news content and how publishers are paid in an AI-driven information market.
The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft in federal court in Manhattan on December 27, 2023. Microsoft is a defendant because it invested heavily in OpenAI and provides the computing infrastructure, and it offers the models through products like Copilot. The Times makes several claims. It says copying its articles into training data is infringement. It says model outputs sometimes reproduce its articles nearly word for word. It says browsing and retrieval features summarize its reporting and substitute for its site. It also brings claims about removing copyright management information and about trademark harm when chatbots attribute invented statements to the Times. The complaint seeks damages and asks that models and datasets built with its work be destroyed. The regurgitation evidence got the most attention. The Times showed about a hundred examples of GPT-4 reproducing long stretches of articles. OpenAI responded that these came from unusual, repeated prompting designed to force copying, that regurgitation is a rare bug it works to fix, and that training on public text is fair use because it is transformative. In 2025, Judge Sidney Stein allowed the core infringement claims to proceed while narrowing others. The case was consolidated with other news and author suits against OpenAI in the Southern District of New York. Discovery became contentious. A magistrate judge ordered OpenAI to preserve ChatGPT output logs, including deleted conversations, and OpenAI objected publicly on privacy grounds. That obligation was later narrowed, and the parties fought over how many de-identified logs OpenAI must produce. A common misconception is that the case has decided whether AI training is legal. As of its latest stages it has not reached a final ruling on fair use.
Les dommages catastrophiques et quotidiens causés par l’IA dépendent tous deux de la personne qui comprend les risques et qui peut agir.
Les connaissances du public et des professionnels déterminent si une politique de sécurité forte est politiquement possible.
Des explications claires réduisent la capture par le battage médiatique, les relations publiques en laboratoire et le théâtre d'éthique vague.
The case could run for years through summary judgment, possible trial and appeals, and a settlement is always possible. Rulings in other AI copyright cases on fair use and market harm will likely influence how Judge Stein analyzes the Times's claims. Meanwhile, licensing deals between AI companies and publishers continue to grow, which strengthens arguments that a market for training licenses exists. The case may also shape norms for retaining and handling user chat data during litigation. Publishers and AI developers alike should watch how the court treats retrieval features, which may matter more to news businesses than training.
The Times's complaint included exhibits in which GPT-4, given the opening of a Times article, continued with long passages nearly identical to the original.
A reader asks a chatbot with browsing to summarize a paywalled investigation, which is the kind of retrieval-based output the Times argues substitutes for visiting its site.
A ChatGPT user learns that a court preservation order required OpenAI to retain output logs, including chats users had deleted, because of discovery in this case.
A regional newspaper group weighs whether to sue or sign a licensing deal with an AI company, watching this case as the leading test of news publishers' claims.
Traiter le risque existentiel comme de la science-fiction alors que les capacités s’accroissent.
Confondre sécurité des produits de surface et alignement sous haute autonomie.
Laisser le public non anglophone et non expert avec uniquement des sources de mauvaise qualité.
Séparez les dommages causés aux produits, leur mauvaise utilisation et les risques de perte de contrôle/désalignement.
Demandez quelles preuves pourraient changer votre point de vue sur les délais et la gravité.
Préférez les sources primaires et les évaluations concrètes aux allégations marketing.
Identifiez une voie d’action : carrière, politique, financement ou compétences – et pas seulement la sensibilisation.
Free newsletter
Three verified AI stories every weekday morning, written in plain English. Free forever, no ads.
One email each weekday. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share your address.
Test yourself
Instant feedback on every answer, and a shareable certificate with a verifiable ID once you pass a course.
Support free AI education. AI Understanding is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit — no ads, no paywall, ever. Make a donation
New York Times v. OpenAI is a copyright lawsuit filed in December 2023 in which the Times accuses OpenAI and Microsoft of copying millions of its articles without permission to train ChatGPT and related models, and of producing outputs that compete with its journalism. The defendants argue that training is fair use. The case matters because its outcome could shape whether AI companies must license news content and how publishers are paid in an AI-driven information market.
The Times filed on December 27, 2023, in federal court in Manhattan, the Southern District of New York.
The complaint names Microsoft because of its investment, its infrastructure role and its products built on OpenAI models.
The Times showed examples of GPT-4 continuing article openings with near-verbatim text, which links training to infringing output.
OpenAI argued the examples came from prompts designed to force copying and that regurgitation is a rare bug it works to fix.
A magistrate judge ordered retention of output logs, including deleted chats, which OpenAI objected to on privacy grounds. The order was later narrowed.
Continuez à apprendre
Plus de guides sélectionnés pour ce sujet
À suivreGuide suivant
Copyright of AI-Generated Music
Société